then this is speculation no? the current incarnation has been expanding 13+BY, but if we will never ever see the end, then how can we measure anything
but our observable distance.

Yes, the true age of our universe is nothing but a calculated speculation. Our scientists can not measure more than what their techonlogy will let
them. That is common sense.

But some people will confuse the accuracy of the age with what has been measured. Remember they have only measured the acurate age out to 13+.

That is why you have to read scientific data very carefully to pic these things up.

so "we see" the universe as 13 billion years old...

it's very different than saying the universe "is" 13 billion years old...

how can science be so misleading? is it on purpose to generate interest...?

edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason
given)

Scientific data have to pass through different chanels before they are published.
There are also many different authors who publish their version to the public as well. Why formulate the information the way they do. I have no answer
to that.

But all you have to do is look up the equipent that was used and read the spec. From that you can figure out what was really measured, and compare it
to the information published.

then this is speculation no? the current incarnation has been expanding 13+BY, but if we will never ever see the end, then how can we measure anything
but our observable distance.

Yes, the true age of our universe is nothing but a calculated speculation. Our scientists can not measure more than what their techonlogy will let
them. That is common sense.

But some people will confuse the accuracy of the age with what has been measured. Remember they have only measured the acurate age out to 13+.

That is why you have to read scientific data very carefully to pic these things up.

so "we see" the universe as 13 billion years old...

it's very different than saying the universe "is" 13 billion years old...

how can science be so misleading? is it on purpose to generate interest...?

edit on 20-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason
given)

Scientific data have to pass through different chanels before they are published.
There are also many different authors who publish their version to the public as well. Why formulate the information the way they do. I have no answer
to that.

But all you have to do is look up the equipent that was used and read the spec. From that you can figure out what was really measured, and compare it
to the information published.

I'll do this when I get back... it's out for Indian food night here.

I have a feeling it is going to be the most distant object though... and not the interstellar medium.

I am sure that builders have made mistakes in their designs of bridges before. What makes intelligence intelligent, is the fact that, a sentient
creature can tell when a design flaw has been made.

In that way, our mistakes are proof of our intelligence, because we are in a constant state of learning from them and making our designs
better.

As for as all of creation, we seem to have been stuck together in a very helter skelter fashion if we are the product of intelligent design.

Like our esophagus and larynx. Choking on food and dying because of it is a sign of a bad design. The larynx and esophagus should not be connected the
way they are. A good designer would realize that mistake and correct it. We have yet to be corrected.

Or what about the appendix? An organ that may have served a function at some point in our past but no longer does, and could potentially rupture and
kill us.

What if an architect designed a home with a murder hole within in a room in the house? We don't use murder holes anymore, so the room would serve no
function. What if he put a bomb in the murder hole, and you have no clue as to whether or not the bomb will go off? And the only way to remove the
bomb is by tearing through the foundation of the home?

The entire concept would be an example of poor design.

There are many examples throughout nature of poor design.

The connection of the larynx and esaphagus is a bad design.

The fact that you have to brush your teeth to stop them from rotting out of your head is a bad design.

An entity that is incapable of intrinsically providing its own energy, instead of being reliant on it's outer environment for food, is a bad
design.

Connecting the eliminative and sexual organs as one is a bad design.

And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect
the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant
on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.

But, here we are with all of those things still intact.

Honestly, there are so many glaring errors in our "design" I can't fathom how anyone would think we were created by anything intelligent.

An input into a system should wind up lodged in a place where it can destroy the system.

That is a design flaw.

The way we live is not even natural. We live in a human designed world. Are we designed to fit into our own designed world?

Actually, if we are natural parts of the Earth, then the way we live would be natural.

If a human builds a skyscraper we say it's "man-made."
If a beaver builds a damn we say it's "beaver-made." Well, actually, we don't say that. If a beaver builds a damn, we don't see the damn as
"artifical." The damn is part of nature.

Likewise, our skyscrapers are not artificial. They are part of nature. They may be a cancer, but they are still natural. just like the beaver damn.

Or are we designed to live differently?

If we were designed to live differently, we would not be living as we are now.

It is a bit selfish dont you think? I would not brag to much about the quality of our standards.

The larynx and esaphagus is a design flaw.

I think there are many people out there that want to fix more than one thing when it comes to body parts. And i dont think the Larynx is very high on
that list of flaws.

If our design was intended to be perfect the rest of the design would have to be perfect as well. That would have created a whole different situation
for everything. And maby a different world for every living thing.

Have you ever made a intelligent thought that there might be a very good reason why we are designed the way we are, for a reason other than our
selfish standards. Because our standards means nothing in the big picture.

Actually, if we are natural parts of the Earth, then the way we live would be natural.

Jesse's, do you really mean that?
We have altered and changed our natural way of life over time too fit our selfish standards. There is nothing natural about our standards, but our
selfishnes have been cept intact.

If a human builds a skyscraper we say it's "man-made."
If a beaver builds a damn we say it's "beaver-made." Well, actually, we don't say that. If a beaver builds a damn, we don't see the damn as
"artifical." The damn is part of nature.

Likewise, our skyscrapers are not artificial. They are part of nature. They may be a cancer, but they are still natural. just like the beaver damn.

Would it be natural if the beaver suddenly built a skyscraper?
Would you accept the the beavers progress?

So if "The universe is not proof of God" then what is the universe proof of then?

Remember your own logic: A is not proof of B.

As for your comment about "bad design" - quoted below:

And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and disconnect
the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of being reliant
on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.

It has no bearing on the existence of God just as an explosion of a house has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2.

In addition, how can you confidently conclude that a design is bad just because of an accident or misused?

Using your own logic, what you're basically saying is that, if a person swallows a chunk of food too soon and too fast and starts choking, it means
that his esophagus was a bad design. Correct?

If so, what kind of logic is that?

Furthermore, there are almost 8 billion people in the world, if the esophagus was a bad design, should we all be chocking to death by now?

Furthermore, how did you know that the esophagus was in the wrong place without knowing the full functionality of every organ and system of the entire
human body?

Haven't it occurred to you that its location is just right with respect to the rest of the body?

For instance, many thought that the appendix was a useless organ. But come to find out, its very presence is important to the immune system.

But really, it's the height of arrogance to say that the human body is a "bad design" while possessing a very very limited knowledge about it.

It's like a first grader criticizing that a Stingray Corvette is a "bad design" just because he sees something not quite right based on his current
experience and understanding.

It's nonsense to say the least.

But in the end your post goes back to this:

Does the imperfection, badness, wickedness, misery, sickness, death we see all around us are proof enough that God doesn't exist?

If you say yes, then we face a very very bleak future for right in front of us is the power to annihilate life - nuclear weapons of unimaginable power
when unleashed.

On the other hand if you say no, then why are these "things" happening?

Is there any valid reason why these things are happening and most of all, who is responsible?

If God - do you mean to say that he exist? If so, does he have the Power and Intelligence to stop all of the madness? After all what are these in
comparison to the Awesome Universe, let alone infinity?

Will the creator of the Universe have the wisdom to restore EVERYTHING into what it was - perfection?

Or his power is limited to the creation of the universe only?

Does he have the power and wisdom to bring back the dead or he is limited only to the creation of universe?

Can he correct all of the mistakes made by mankind or his power and wisdom is limited?

But if God doesn't exist, then who is responsible?

Here lies the conundrum - to believe or not to believe.

"Out of nothing, comes something"

"Out of something (someone eternal), comes something".

Who has the last Word?

Your conclusion to this matter will have a bearing on how you view life and the future.

I am sure that builders have made mistakes in their designs of bridges before. What makes intelligence intelligent, is the fact that, a sentient
creature can tell when a design flaw has been made.

In that way, our mistakes are proof of our intelligence, because we are in a constant state of learning from them and making our designs
better.

As for as all of creation, we seem to have been stuck together in a very helter skelter fashion if we are the product of intelligent design.

Like our esophagus and larynx. Choking on food and dying because of it is a sign of a bad design. The larynx and esophagus should not be connected the
way they are. A good designer would realize that mistake and correct it. We have yet to be corrected.

Or what about the appendix? An organ that may have served a function at some point in our past but no longer does, and could potentially rupture and
kill us.

What if an architect designed a home with a murder hole within in a room in the house? We don't use murder holes anymore, so the room would serve no
function. What if he put a bomb in the murder hole, and you have no clue as to whether or not the bomb will go off? And the only way to remove the
bomb is by tearing through the foundation of the home?

The entire concept would be an example of poor design.

There are many examples throughout nature of poor design.

The connection of the larynx and esaphagus is a bad design.

The fact that you have to brush your teeth to stop them from rotting out of your head is a bad design.

An entity that is incapable of intrinsically providing its own energy, instead of being reliant on it's outer environment for food, is a bad
design.

Connecting the eliminative and sexual organs as one is a bad design.

And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and
disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of
being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.

But, here we are with all of those things still intact.

Honestly, there are so many glaring errors in our "design" I can't fathom how anyone would think we were created by anything
intelligent.

edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon
because: (no reason given)

it would probably be better if you just went ahead and told me why the universe is a natural place...

why all that stuff out there and the enormous distances and other life...

spy66
Scientific data have to pass through different chanels before they are published.
There are also many different authors who publish their version to the public as well. Why formulate the information the way they do. I have no answer
to that.

But all you have to do is look up the equipent that was used and read the spec. From that you can figure out what was really measured, and compare it
to the information published.

I read about 2 methods used... the first one deals with Hubble's constant and Einstein's cosmological constant, which Einstein abandon as his biggest
blunder after or right around the time Hubble determined the galaxies were flying away from eachother.

--

"Extrapolating Back to the Big Bang

If we compare the two age determinations, there is a potential crisis. If the astronomers who estimate that 1/H0 is as small as 10 Billion years are
correct, then the age of the Universe would be shorter than the age of its oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either the Big Bang theory
is incorrect or that we need to modify general relativity by adding a cosmological constant.

Some astronomers believe that this crisis will pass as soon as our measurements improve. If the astronomers who have measured the larger values of
1/H0 are correct and the smaller estimates of globular cluster ages are also correct, then all may be well for the Big Bang theory.

--

the other deals with Globular Clusters, both methods come from NASA site about the measurement of the age of the universe.

the globular cluster method relies largely on the study of our own sun, and how it exhausts its fuel... which is a big big mystery too and it is not
definitive how the reactor works...

So if "The universe is not proof of God" then what is the universe proof of then?

Remember your own logic: A is not proof of B.

The universe is proof of the existence of the universe.

If a thing exists, it has mass and occupies space. It's existence can be verified, either by it's physical presence (we have a live specimen), or by
the collection of the evidence of it's affect on an environment (we found fossils, or footprints in mud, we can measure and accurately predict various
attributes of the thing in question).

Saying "we exist, therefore, God exists" is poor logic.

A is not proof of the existence of B.
A is proof of the existence of A.

And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and
disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of
being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.

It has no bearing on the existence of God just as an explosion of a house has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2.

I wasn't refuting the existence of God with that bit. I meant the fallacy of "intelligent design."

In addition, how can you confidently conclude that a design is bad just because of an accident or misused?

The larynx and esophagus are connected. When you swallow food, if you do not synchronize the timing of your breathing with the timing of the action of
swallowing...you will choke. If you block the airway long enough you can suffer brain damage, or worse, death.

I am a programmer, so I'll use a computer analogy. Let's say I write a program that receives inputs from two separate sources--a scanner and a
database server. So data is flowing from two separate channels that will merge into one channel, and then that leads to the software application.

If that is the case, you have to synchronize when to grab data from the server, and when to grab data from the scanner. If your timing is off, the
data collides and the collision kills the application. That could be bad, because maybe you forgot to save your work.

So, a better design would be to leave the two channels separate. That way, the data travels two separate paths and there is no fear of a collision
because a collision can't happen. It can't because it was designed not to. THAT, is a far better design than leaving the question of a
collision up to chance.

People do not choke because of misuse of the human system. They choke purely by accident from lack of correct timing between swallowing and breathing
correctly, because of the connection between the larynx and the esophagus. A better design would be to leave the larynx and esophagus disconnected as
two separate paths. I mean, they are tubes whose input leads to two separate subsystems. One input is going to the digestive system, the other
input is going to the respiratory system--but, when you are eating, both start from the same channel (the mouth).

Using your own logic, what you're basically saying is that, if a person swallows a chunk of food too soon and too fast and starts choking, it
means that his esophagus was a bad design. Correct?

No. That means that the connection between the esophagus and the larynx is a bad design. It simply does not need to be there. It serves
no purpose and is dangerous.

If so, what kind of logic is that?

That's actually impeccable design logic.

Furthermore, there's almost 8 billion people in the world, if the esophagus was a bad design, should we all be chocking to death by
now?

Uh, no.

The connection between the larynx and esophagus is the problem. The connection. It does not guarantee death, it just means that an accident
can occur.

And choking is a pretty big accident.

Furthermore, how did you know that the esophagus was in the wrong place without knowing the full functionality of every organ and system of the
entire human body?

We already know all of that. The esophagus carries food to the digestive organs. The larynx carries oxygen to the lungs and the rest of the
respiratory system.

The esophagus is not in the wrong place, the problem is the connection to the larynx.

Haven't it occurred to you that its location is just right with respect to the rest of the body?

Once agian, the location is not the problem, it's the connection between two channels that should not be connected. I am not entirely sure where you
are getting location? I never stated that location of the esophagus was the error.

For instance, many thought that the appendix was a useless organ. But come to find out, its very presence is important to the immune
system.

They are still gathering evidence to figure out what the appendix does.

But really, it's the height of arrogance to say that the human body is a "bad design" while possessing a very very limited knowledge about
it.

And, um, how did you deduce what my "limit" is?
The esophagus and larynx are connected, and that connection is the cause of choking. If they were not connected, there would be no
choking.

So yeah, that's a design flaw. IF we are the product of "intelligent design."

If someone makes the claim that we are the product of intelligent design, and someone else points out the glaring design flaws that the human body
possesses--how is that "arrogant?"

It's like a first grader criticizing that a Stingray Corvette is a "bad design" just because he sees something not quite right based on his
current experience and understanding.

No, that's not the same thing at all.

I understand just fine how the esophagus and larynx work.

But in the end your post goes back to this:

Does the imperfection, badness, wickedness, misery, sickness, death, we see all around us are proof enough that God doesn't exist?

Uh, no, that was not my argument at all.

It wasn't one of those "but, if God exists, why does bad stuff happen?!?!?"

My argument was against intelligent design. We are not the product of intelligent design. Because of our design flaws, it can be deduced that nothing
intelligent designed us. It is more rational to see how we are the product of "random chance" when you have a system like the human body that has
two channels like the esophagus and larynx connected. An intelligent designer would not be that retarded.

Well, either that retarded or that cruel. Maybe God was a teenager and the random chance of a human choking was a joke. I used to design stuff
like that when I played Roller Coaster Tycoon and The Sims

Oh yeah, one more thing, it is impossible to actually provide proof of something that does not exist.

Like, if something doesn't exist, that means there is nothing there to find, which means when someone asks for proof of the nonexistence of
something you wind up in an infinite loop of stupid.

Unicorns do not exist, and guess what? It is impossible for me to actually provide evidence of their nonexistence. Because if there was
evidence, that would mean that they actually exist..which would mean...wait...I am so confused...

If you say yes, then we face a very very bleak future for right in front of us is the power to annihilate life - nuclear weapons of
unimaginable power when unleashed.

The truth is often more bleak than fantasy.

On the other hand if you say no, then why are these "things" happening?

Maybe we reincarnate over and over again so our souls gain experiences to evolve into super beings?

Is there any valid reason why these things are happening and most of all, who is responsible?

Valid reason: The growing pains of an evolving species.

Who/what is responsible: I don't know.

If God - do you mean to say that he exist? If so, does he have the Power and Intelligence to stop all of the madness? After all what are these
in comparison to the Awesome Universe, let alone infinity?

I don't believe in God, blaming something nonexistent would be pointless.

Will the creator of the Universe have the wisdom to restore EVERYTHING into what it was - perfection?

Or his power is limited to the creation of the universe only?

I have no idea.

Your conclusion to this matter will have a bearing on how you view life and your future.

So if "The universe is not proof of God" then what is the universe proof of then?

Remember your own logic: A is not proof of B.

The universe is proof of the existence of the universe.

If a thing exists, it has mass and occupies space. It's existence can be verified, either by it's physical presence (we have a live specimen), or by
the collection of the evidence of it's affect on an environment (we found fossils, or footprints in mud, we can measure and accurately predict
various attributes of the thing in question).

Saying "we exist, therefore, God exists" is poor logic.

A is not proof of the existence of B.
A is proof of the existence of A.

And, seeing that intelligence can redraft a design and improve it, why haven't our bodies been improved? God could remove the appendix, and
disconnect the larynx and esophagus from one another. The eliminative organs could be eliminated if our bodies created their own energy instead of
being reliant on our surroundings. Our teeth could auto-kill bad bacteria thereby doing away with the need for dental care.

It has no bearing on the existence of God just as an explosion of a house has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2.

I wasn't refuting the existence of God with that bit. I meant the fallacy of "intelligent design."

In addition, how can you confidently conclude that a design is bad just because of an accident or misused?

The larynx and esophagus are connected. When you swallow food, if you do not synchronize the timing of your breathing with the timing of the action of
swallowing...you will choke. If you block the airway long enough you can suffer brain damage, or worse, death.

I am a programmer, so I'll use a computer analogy. Let's say I write a program that receives inputs from two separate sources--a scanner and a
database server. So data is flowing from two separate channels that will merge into one channel, and then that leads to the software application.

If that is the case, you have to synchronize when to grab data from the server, and when to grab data from the scanner. If your timing is off, the
data collides and the collision kills the application. That could be bad, because maybe you forgot to save your work.

So, a better design would be to leave the two channels separate. That way, the data travels two separate paths and there is no fear of a collision
because a collision can't happen. It can't because it was designed not to. THAT, is a far better design than leaving the question of a
collision up to chance.

People do not choke because of misuse of the human system. They choke purely by accident from lack of correct timing between swallowing and breathing
correctly, because of the connection between the larynx and the esophagus. A better design would be to leave the larynx and esophagus disconnected as
two separate paths. I mean, they are tubes whose input leads to two separate subsystems. One input is going to the digestive system, the other
input is going to the respiratory system--but, when you are eating, both start from the same channel (the mouth).

Using your own logic, what you're basically saying is that, if a person swallows a chunk of food too soon and too fast and starts choking, it
means that his esophagus was a bad design. Correct?

No. That means that the connection between the esophagus and the larynx is a bad design. It simply does not need to be there. It serves
no purpose and is dangerous.

If so, what kind of logic is that?

That's actually impeccable design logic.

Furthermore, there's almost 8 billion people in the world, if the esophagus was a bad design, should we all be chocking to death by
now?

Uh, no.

The connection between the larynx and esophagus is the problem. The connection. It does not guarantee death, it just means that an accident
can occur.

And choking is a pretty big accident.

Furthermore, how did you know that the esophagus was in the wrong place without knowing the full functionality of every organ and system of the
entire human body?

We already know all of that. The esophagus carries food to the digestive organs. The larynx carries oxygen to the lungs and the rest of the
respiratory system.

The esophagus is not in the wrong place, the problem is the connection to the larynx.

Haven't it occurred to you that its location is just right with respect to the rest of the body?

Once agian, the location is not the problem, it's the connection between two channels that should not be connected. I am not entirely sure where you
are getting location? I never stated that location of the esophagus was the error.

For instance, many thought that the appendix was a useless organ. But come to find out, its very presence is important to the immune
system.

They are still gathering evidence to figure out what the appendix does.

But really, it's the height of arrogance to say that the human body is a "bad design" while possessing a very very limited knowledge about
it.

And, um, how did you deduce what my "limit" is?
The esophagus and larynx are connected, and that connection is the cause of choking. If they were not connected, there would be no
choking.

So yeah, that's a design flaw. IF we are the product of "intelligent design."

If someone makes the claim that we are the product of intelligent design, and someone else points out the glaring design flaws that the human body
possesses--how is that "arrogant?"

"It doesn't fit in with what I believe."

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

edit on 20-11-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2013 by
LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

So really the problem is not in the design but the user of the design. You said so yourself:

When you swallow food, if you do not synchronize the timing of your breathing with the timing of the action of swallowing...you will choke.

The key is synchronization. If we can perfectly time this every time we swallow then there will be no chocking.

Fortunately, out of 8 billion (imperfect) people, chocking accidents are very small. Otherwise like I said - all of us will be chocking by now because
of a "bad design".

Now if we only pay attention and make sure to obey mum to chew our food first before we swallow and not talk while eating/chewing, then we'll have no
problem.

As for the larynx being connected to the esophagus - I'm glad that it's connected that way otherwise, no upbeat songs sung by the Beach Boys or your
fav.

The user is not the problem. The user should not have to worry about the timing in the first place.

If the two were not connected, there would be no need for synchronizations between swallowing and breathing.

That's the damned point.

The connection is erroneous. It is not the fault of the user if they accidentally inhale their food because they screwed up the timing between
breathing and swallowing. The connections shouldn't be there in the first place. It's a bad design.

"You may get into a car accident, we could have designed X so that would be impossible, but eh...to hell with it."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.